¶1The problem with Wikipedia is that it only works in
practice. In theory, it can never work. — Zeroeth Law

¶2Everyone who comes across Raul’s laws eventually adds
one of their own. — Ben’s Revolting Realization

¶3At Wikimania 2007, a gathering of Wikimedia contributors
in Taipei, one of the free gifts received during registration was a spherical
puzzle. Like any other jigsaw, the pieces must be fit together, but in this
case they form a globe much like the one seen near the top of every Wikipedia
article. The Wikipedia logo is that of an incomplete world of characters, each
piece representing a different language. In discussing Wikipedia’s culture, I
use the metaphor of a puzzle to explain the ways in which neutral point of view
and good faith complement each other in the collaborative production of an
encyclopedia. NPOV makes it possible for the jigsaw shapes to actually be
fitted together, and good faith facilitates the process — sometimes
frustrating, sometimes fun — of putting them together with one’s peers. In
accordance with Ben’s Revolting Realization at the head of this chapter, this
idea — and this book itself I suppose — is my own addendum to the Laws of
Wikipedia.

¶5
However, just as “neutral” should not be understood as a description of the
encyclopedia but as an aspiration and intentional stance of its contributors,
one should appreciate ideals of universalism, openness, and good faith in a
similar light. For example, there are inherent tensions (e.g., “the tyranny
of structurelessness”) and practical difficulties (e.g., Wikipedia office
actions) within an open content community. Similarly, if one were to read my
focus on good faith (assuming the best of others, striving for patience,
civility, and humor) as implying that Wikipedia is a harmonious community of
benevolent saints, one would be wrong.

¶7 One’s
first impulse in answering the question about Wikipedia’s success is to focus
on technology. Clearly, as is apparent in my history, technology has played a
significant role in inspiring the vision of a universal encyclopedia. And
beyond inspiration, networking technology and its related collaborative
techniques can enable openness and accessibility, furthering accountability and
the socialization of newcomers. On a wiki, contributors can communicate
asynchronously and contribute incrementally. Tasks can be modularized. Changes
are easily reverted. Accessible documentation, discussion pages, templates, and
automated tools further coordination. However, technology, while important, is
insufficient. Plenty of projects fail despite the wiki pixie dust. This is why
the question of “How is something like Wikipedia possible?” leads me to the
question of “How can we understand Wikipedia’s collaborative culture?” As
noted, Larry Sanger concedes that at the start he mistakenly “denied that
Wikipedia was a community, claiming that it was, instead, only an encyclopedia
project.”10Sanger,
“The Early History of Nupedia and Wikipedia”. This is a
type of mistake he thinks others now make with respect to technology:

¶9 Perhaps
a lot of the criticism against Wikipedia and “Web 2.0” relates to this
issue. People seize upon wiki as a buzzword, implying they can magically
transform business, government, or anything really. Observing this hyped
rendering of technology, some critics ask, but what of individual difference
and social bonds? Wikipedia supporters argue these things have been there all
along. This is why a focus on community and culture are necessary to
understanding Wikipedia; as Sanger notes, “while collaborative systems should
be designed with the needs and values of participants in mind, I think that a
certain culture or set of values, is necessary in order to make collaboration
work.”12Ibidem,
6. My argument is that good faith social norms (combined with
wiki features) constructively facilitate Wikipedia collaboration. However, more
autocratic forms of authority may be necessary to defend against those acting
in bad faith or when there is no community consensus. Hence, egalitarian open
content communities are sometimes (ironically) led by a “benevolent
dictator.” Jimmy Wales serves in this role at Wikipedia and has influenced
much of its culture. Yet, if such leadership or institutional governance
persistently fails, the community might then fork.

¶10
Even if one accepts my argument about the importance of culture, some might
argue my portrayal is off the mark. I’ve already qualified my focus on good
faith as an aspiration and cultural norm rather than a description of all
Wikipedia practice. (Though the corpus of norms and their imperfect
implementation is remarkable still.) Yet some readers might claim things have
changed at Wikipedia: it may have once been an encyclopedia with potential,
been produced by an open content community, or had a culture of good faith, but
not now.

¶12 No
doubt, the community will change, but change is inevitable — and my efforts
are necessarily fixed in a particular slice of time. Also, “golden years”
tend to be subjective and relative. I began this work in 2004, the same year a
self-described “old-timer” mentioned he began his wiki career and the same
year in which another (older old-timer) told me the project began to go
downhill. (JDG’s First Law notes each “wave or generation” of Wikipedia
editors corresponds to “the human gestation period,” which means about nine
months.15Wikipedia,
“User:Raul654/Raul’s Laws (oldid=301373968)”.) I too
have concerns about Wikipedia’s quality, community, and culture as it
evolves. And just like any community Wikipedia does change. It has been
relatively successful and has faced extraordinary growing pains. Almost a
century ago the seminal sociologist Max Weber noted that organizations often
develop toward bureaucratic forms. We shouldn’t be surprised that the same
has happened to Wikipedia; perhaps those who are disenchanted should think of
themselves as “wiki entrepreneurs,” preferring the fast and flexible
environment of a small community. And, as Weber notes, “When those subject to
bureaucratic control seek to escape the influence of the existing bureaucratic
apparatus, this is normally possible only by creating an organization of their
own which is equally subject to bureaucratization.”16Weber, Economy and Society,
244. It seems as if Weber was speaking of forking over a
century ago.

¶13 In
fact, I considered those who have left Wikipedia to begin anew at another wiki
as part of its legacy. In the most extreme and unlikely case, even if the
community disappeared and all that was left was a snapshot of its content,
Wikipedia still would have been an amazing phenomenon. Among all of those
individuals throughout history, pursuing the vision of a universal
encyclopedia, Wikipedians have come closest to realizing it. Even a frozen
carcass of Wikipedia content would continue to be a useful resource. And there
would be dozens of projects with former Wikipedians still pursuing the vision
of accessible knowledge and the joy of collaborating in good faith. However,
Wikipedia has always been a puzzle. Born almost as a happy accident, growing
far beyond anyone’s expectations, and applauded not because it is perfect but
because it is confoundingly good, I expect Wikipedia will continue to surprise
us.